202 Edwards St SW Grants emailsGrant, I agree with option #2 (and that we should not hire the sound
company to come back out), go forth and prep a letter that addresses her
issues in both of the e -mails received today. I would like to take a look at the
draft prior to you sending it.
I had forwarded Adam a copy of your original letter so he was aware of the
complaint and its results and I will update Adam on current status. Thanks
Grant, Shelly
Shelly Badger
Yelm City Administrator
P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597
360- 458 -8405
shellva,,velmtel.com
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Grant Beck
To: Shelly Badger
Cc: Gary Carlson
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Citizen Action Request
Here goes:
* The compresser was on during all 4 test.
* The Noise WAC indicates that noise is regulated at the property line of the receiving property, line of
sight to her apartment is not relevant (plus the noise is louder the closer you get to the source, so this
protects the complainant).
* The levels with the compresser running were 10 and 11 dBA under the threshold of 60 dBA. The law
allows 'spikes' of up to 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes per hour. There is no way the cycling of the compressor's
add 25 dBA to the baseline, nor is there any way that the noise is going to fluxuate 10 dBA during the day.
* Chapter 9.44 YMC regulates non - comercial nuisances. This chapter does not'trump' the environmental
standards of the zoning code or State laws relating to noise. In order to determine if a noise becomes
'injurious and dangerous to the health, comfort, or property of indivduals or the public', you HAVE to look
at the standards set in the Zoning Code. Note that even if the Apartments were in the most restrictive
noise catagory (which they aren't), Harding meets the noise threshold. The City would have an awfully
hard time proving something that meets noise restrictions is a public nuisance. This chapter also restricts
noise that would 'unreasonably disturb others'. What is unreasonable is subjective and needs to be
enforced in the context of the standards of the Zoning Code.
Where to go from here:
Option 1 is to get the sound guy to address the technical complaints and for me to address the nuisance vs.
noise regulation issue. This will cost more $$ and will not make her happy about the sound study.
Option 2 is for me to address all issues in a second letter.
I believe that no amount of scientific study or analysis of the regulations will satisfy Ms. Kangas, so the
real question is how much effort do we put in to make the attempt. I would recommend one more letter
with a very forceful 'closure' statement at the end, including a very pointed reply to the jab about 'serve it's
citizens with all due consideration and without predudice.' If that closes the door as it relates to
enforcement, it will become a political issue either with the City Council or perhaps the Dept. of Ecology
(they administer the State Noise Code). At that point, it might help to have Adam make a personal
contact.
In the end, we have been fair and even handed in the enforcement of the adopted rules and I am 100%
comfortable in the position we have taken, it's just a matter of convincing her of that.
I hope this helps.
Grant
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Shelly Badger [mailto:shelly @yelmtel.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Grant Beck
Subject: Fw: Citizen Action Request
This has Adam's name on it too, but before I forward it to him, could
you give me your thoughts on next steps needed so I can give him that
info also?
Thanks ..... sb
P.S. and you wanted us to have a website ?!
Shelly Badger
Yelm City Administrator
P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597
360- 458 -8405
shelly .yelmtel.com
- - - -- Original Message - - --
From: karen k
To: dspivey(@ywave.com
Cc: shelly .yelmtel.com
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 10:16 AM
Subject: Citizen Action Request
City of Yelm:
Grant Beck, Director
Department of Community Development
Shelly Badger, City Administrator
Adam Rivas, Mayor
Re: Noise nuisance generated by Harding Evergreen
I received the decision made by Grant Beck stating the Community Development
Department has completed its investigation of the noise levels generated by
Harding Evergreen. The department has determined there is no violation of
adopted noise regulations based on Section 17.57.030 Yehn Municipal Code.
The "special inspection and field testing" report from Construction Testing
Laboratories, Inc states decibel readings were recorded at 4 points along the
border of the receiving property. The first two locations recorded 49 dBA
(compressor off) and the last two recorded 50 dBA (compressor running)... a
highly unlikely difference of 1 dBA. I think the study is flawed for a number of
reasons. The last two recordings were not done within the line of
sight between the noise source and my apartment. The recordings were obviously
not done over an appropriate amount of time to achieve an accurate assessment
of the decibel levels during all of the cycles of the compressor (some cycles are
quieter than others). A 24 hour period would have been appropriate to determine
the noise levels (decibels can vary over a 24 hour period. Changes in weather and
background noise affects decibel levels as well). There is also the question of
calibration... when was the meter last calibrated and is it accurate?
The decision was based on Section 17.57.030 Yehn Municipal Code
(Environmental Performance Standards- Noise).
I submit a request for reconsideration based on Section 9.44.010 Yelm Municipal
Code (Public Nuisances):
I. "Public Nuisance" and "Nuisance„ each mean and consist of doing an
unlawful act, OR omitting to perform a duty, OR suffering OR permitting
any condition or thing to be or exist, which act, omission, condition or
thing either:
1. Unreasonably injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety
of others,
My statement in the Citizen Action Request form I submitted on July 28, 2003
stated my comfort, repose, and health are degraded by the noise nuisance. I can
not enjoy a cup of coffee on my deck without the annoying noise from the
compressor across the street. I would like to keep my windows and doors open
on hot days and not have to tolerate the noise. This summer broke temperature
records and duration records for days without rain, so doors and windows open
made the heat more tolerable and safer (from heat exhaustion/stroke). To enjoy
television I have to turn up the volumn or keep the doors and windows closed. I
can not sleep with my bedroom window open without the noise disrupting my
sleep (I sleep better with a window open for fresh air). I have health issues that
are aggravated by stress and potentially life threatening (hypertension for one
thing). The compressor noise is annoying and a source of stress in my life
(studies have shown noise can cause irritability, raise blood pressure, sleep
deprivation, emotional breakdown, and suicide.... even when people claim to be
"used to the noise" and that they "don't notice it ". The physiological
and psychological affects have been studied and documented, as I am sure you
are aware. ).
And further based on:
9.44.015 Prohibited Conduct. It is a violation of this chapter for any
person to permit, create, maintain, or allow, upon any premises, any of
the acts or things declared in section 9.44.010 or 9.44.020
nuisance, or to fail to abate such a nuisance pursuant to lawful notice
given under chapter 9.48 of the Yelm Municipal Code.
Section 4. Section 9.44.020 is amended as follows: Section 9.44.020
Nuisances Declared. The following specific acts, omissions, places and
conditions are declared to be public nuisances:
A. Erecting, continuing or using any building or other place in the city for
the exercise of any trade, employment or manufacture, which by
occasioning noxious exhalation, offensive smells OR other annoyances,
becomes injurious and dangerous to the health, comfort or property of
individuals or the public;
K. Placing, depositing, keeping, having or leaving in or upon any private
lot, building, structure or premises, or in or upon any street, avenue, park,
parkway or public or private place in the city any one or more of the
following conditions, places or things:
10. The emitting of loud and raucous noise, from whatever the source or
location, in a manner which, under the circumstances, unreasonably
disturbs others.
11. Causing or allowing any other nuisance as defined in section 9.44.010 or
other provision of the Yelm Municipal Code.
I learned that there have been many complaints (making the complaints
reasonable because of the number of people who have been annoyed by the
noise) over the years. The manager (at least he told me that was his title. His
grandmother lives in the home on the Harding property) confirmed that there
have been many complaints in the past. Yet the owners refuse to abate the
noise... even by simple solution. I suggested they park their large truck next to
the compressor to lower the noise level after I witnessed a major decrease in the
noise level when a large 18 wheel truck was parked next to it. A simple solution
that was declared unacceptable by the manager because he feared the
truck would be vandalized (is it not insured and why not put up security
cameras? ... they are inexpensive now...) if he moved it approximately 30 from
where it is always parked. The "manager" said his grandmother can view it from
her window where it is parked now. Half the residents in Rainier Apartments
would be able to see it parked anywhere in Harding's parking lot. I think it is
reasonable to assume more people would be witness to vandals if it were parked
next to the compressor, which should deter vandalism rather than encourage it.
There are reasonable and inexpensive solutions to permanently abate the noise
yet the owner refuses to abate the noise (unreasonable).
Regarding enforcement:
Section 9.48.010 Abatement Procedure.
A. Upon receipt of information or upon personal observation that a
nuisance exists as defined in chapter 9.44 of the Yelm Municipal Code,
the enforcement officer shall cause an investigation of the matter and
premises involved. If the enforcement officer determines that a nuisance
exists he or she shall file a written finding to that effect with the city clerk.
B. After having filed a finding that a nuisance exists, the enforcement
officer shall require the owner of the premises involved to abate the
nuisance at his or her own cost and expense, in whole or in Dart. The
enforcement officer shall give written notice to the owner as prescribed in
this section, describing the property involved, the condition to be
corrected, and a specified reasonable time within which the owner must
correct the condition, which shall be not less than five (5) days, or ten (10)
days from the date of service by mail as evidenced by the postmark on
the notice. The notice must further specify (a) that if the owner fails to
abate the nuisance within the specified period of time, the city shall cause
the work to be performed and shall assess all or any portion of the cost
thereof against the owner; (b) that the owner may be liable for civil
penalties for each day or part of day that the condition continues to exist
following the notice, (c) that the owner alternatively may be liable to
criminal prosecution, as provided in this chapter; and (d) that the owner
has a right to appeal the notice as provided in subsection E of this
section. The required notice shall be in substantially the following form:
NOTICE TO ABATE UNSAFE OR UNLAWFUL CONDITION
(NUISANCE)
Again, I am asking that the City of Yelm enforce it's laws and serve it's
citizens with all due consideration and without prejudice.
Sincerely,
Karen Kangas
Please respond